Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments PLANNER 5/21/2009 .... . JONES Terry (Tara) i 7- -07-- ~q . T:!, I S-V3 .2 fV) 2.e;-oq - ()1TO III .:-I ~f/ . From: Sent: To: Subject: METZGER Mark Thursday, May 21,20094:19 PM MILLER Liz; JONES Terry (Tara); KELLY Deyette; DAVIS Lissa FW: Locally Significant Wetland Issue This wetland issue has been at the counter and I wanted to include you in this response from DSL regarding a wetland delineation and OFWAM (Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology) analysis for a site just south of 59th and Main Street. The site is a wetland. The owner wanted the City to remove the "Locally Significant" status of the wetland. I indicated that DSL had approved the OFWAM analysis and that the city did not have the jurisdiction to remove the "Locally Significant" designation. The e-mail string below includes a letter from Janet Morland from DSL which confirms my understanding of the lawe We can work with the property owner to help them make reasonable use of their property using the variance process that we have in our code. From: Loran Waldron [mailto:lwaldron@landandwater.biz] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 3:26 PM To: MORLAN Janet Cc: Pete Cobarrubia; METZGER Mark Subject: Re: Locally Significant Wetland Issue Thanks Janet. That was a very concise and clear explanation. Our on-site wetland delineation confirmed the L WI boundary on the northern portion of the lot, and you indicate that it would not be appropriate to change the approved OFW AM results for a small but connected portion of the wetland. I am sure at this point that Pete, Mark and I will continue the discussion about the variance procedures that are in place. . Thank you very much for your input. Loran --- Original Message - iFroni?MbRIT:AN?Jah'et:i52iTit~;t;li!':n::"~;';J:( <:F~0jf~i;W~[i:1!\:;t;ts;J!:;; . ji'" I To: Loran Waldron Cc: mrmelzaerra>ci.sorinafield.orus Sent: Thursday, May 21,20092:32 PM Subject: RE: Locally Significant Wetland Issue Hi Loran & Mork, I read over the e-moil exchange and your letter to me, Loran. Here's the scoop on this joint state-local designation process: As Mark indicated, when DSL approves an LWI we approve the mapping and the OFWAM work (this was done in 2 stages for Springfield, as the original LWI rules did not include OFWAM). OFWAM, like most wetland assessment methods, directs the evaluator to consider all hydrologically connected portions of a wetland as a single assessment unit. It is not broken into separate units based upon ownership or Coward in classification. (We do, however, often allow more than one essentially identical wetlands with identi~al surrounding land uses etc. to be lumped into a single OFWAM assessment.) Also, the mapping requirements do not require mapping the different Coward in classes, just the wetland boundaries, so the classification of different portions of a wetland are not I . Date Received: (;"; 2.( / dc, I Pc? 10{ z.." 1 Planner: T J ',,~ t' known from the LWI alone. So the nhal LWI includes mapped wetlands and ~. .Jciated documentation, including . oFWAM results for the wetlands (not port.ions of wetlands). The consultants conducting the L WI generally also do the next step of running the oFW AM results through the Locally Significant Wetland designation rules and often include that work in the LWI binder, even though the act of "designation" is a city responsibility. Those rules were developed by DSL as required by the legislature. However, that legislation did not give DSL any'authority beyond developing the rules! So, DSL approves the LWI including oFWAM, but we say nothing in our approval letter about the LSW work; all we do is provide some advice to the.consultant & city upon request or if we happen to notice any problem with the LSW work. Presumably, DLCD has some authority as they must acknowledge plan amendments. Our LWI rules and most local wetlands ordinances do address an administerial procedure for correcting wetland mapping errors, but that refers to the ability to adjust wetland boundaries or remove a site that turns out to not be wetland, based upon a DSL-approved delineation, without going through a plan amendment. It doesn't mean classification because classification boundaries are not mapped nor intended to be mapped. So, it would not be appropriate to change the oFWAM results (and those results are both approved by DSL and adopted by the City), and there really is no state process for changing a LSW designation based upon those approved results and application of the LSW rules. However, Goal 5 does require that Cities ineludea variance procedure to consider hardship variances for any lands demonstrated to have been rendered not buildable by application of the ordinance. If the LSW designation and' ordinance does make the parcel "essentially non- developable" as your e-mail states, then Mark's e-mail indicates to me that the City does have a provision for a variance, and there is no need to coordinate with DSL on appropriate application of that variance procedure. Let me know if you have further questions. Janet C. Morlan, PWS Wetlands Program Manager Department of State Lands Wetlands & Waterways Conservation Division .775 Summer Street NE, Ste. 100 Salem, OR 97301-1279 503-986-5236 Fax: 503-378-4844 www.oreaonstatelands.us From: Loran Waldron [mailto:lwaldron@landandwater.biz] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 3:44 PM To: MORLAN Janet Subject: Re: Locally Significant Wetland Issue , OK Thank you. Loran Waldron Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 3:35 PM. Subject: RE: Locally Significant Wetland Issue 2 Date Received: P;.....;,,,r. TJ c:;,/?//Oc, Po- ?..&{/....